OAKLAND — An updated Oakland ordinance will give renters more rights, in efforts to stop “harassing” behavior of landlords who may try to get rid of their tenants for higher rents.

The new updated ordinance passed in a 7-0-1 vote on Tuesday, with Councilwoman Lynette Gibson McElhaney abstaining.

“Tenant harassment is on the rise,” said city attorney Barbara Parker in her presentation to the council on Tuesday.

The amendments will make changes such as: limit rent increases in one year (consumer price index adjustments plus 5%); limit late fees to 3% of rent; and prohibit eviction based on more roommates, if the landlord unreasonably refused them. It also gives new authority to the city attorney to file lawsuits on behalf of tenants if there are proven examples of landlord harassment.

The amendments in general are designed to discourage owners from engaging in harassing behavior “to empty their units and subsequently re-rent them at a higher profit,” according to the city.

Examples of unlawful harassment include illegal lockouts, utility shutoffs, removing tenants’ belongings and ousting tenants from their homes. Because of the coronavirus pandemic, the tactics seem to have been exacerbated, as rent rates “skyrocket” and the economy has been brought to a screeching halt, Parker said.

The ordinance now lists specific violations such as illegal lock-outs, elder financial abuse, fraud and forcing an occupant to vacate. Although previously illegal under state law, now that they’re included in the ordinance, the city attorney has the authority to file a civil action against a landlord. This could be beneficial for tenants who can’t afford to sue themselves.

In addition, if a landlord is found in violation by a court of such harassment, the minimum damages that they must pay also increased. Tenants can now be awarded $2,000 if a landlord threatened to report them to an immigration authority, $2,000 for elderly or disabled tenants, and $2,000 for catastrophically ill tenants.

If the city attorney’s office finds there is a pattern of unlawful harassment, the court may also fine landlords a penalty of $1,000 per day for such a violation.

This updated ordinance also gives tenants a right to seek a rent reduction if the landlord “unreasonably denies” them the right to replace a departing roommate.

McElhaney said she heard concerns about the new ordinance from residents in her district, particularly elderly homeowners. She questioned the “one for one” tenant replacement.

Laura Lane, of the city attorney’s office, explained the right to replace a roommate to the council. She said the “one for one” replacement clarifies that if a roommate moves out, the remaining tenants have a right to get a replacement, so they aren’t stuck with the full rent. But if a new tenant is unreasonably denied, then the remaining roommates can ask for a rent reduction.

Landlords would also still be permitted to screen any new occupants, but wouldn’t be allowed to refuse them based on their credit-worthiness, Lane said. For example, if an adult child moves back in with their parents because he/she is unemployed and has bad credit, the parents’ landlord can’t refuse them. The original tenants, the parents, would still be responsible for the rent.

Other council members expressed their support of the new ordinance. Councilman Noel Gallo said that things aren’t as they were 10 years ago: Homes in the Fruitvale district are now owned by investors who don’t even live in Oakland.

“We can do a lot of appreciation, but it’s what we do to support our communities,” Gallo said. “How do we protect our children who are trying to make a living?”